Jason Resch writes:
> > Jason Resch writes: > > > >My appologies to those on this list, this is how I should have worded > >my conclusion: > >Positive spared lives = Take replication > >Neutral spared lives = Take coin flip > >Negative spared lives = Take coin flip [SP] > This is an analysis from an altruistic viewpoint, i.e. which choice will > increase > the net happiness in the world. What I am asking is the selfish question, what > should I do to avoid being tortured? If I choose the replication it won't > worry > me from a selfish point of view if one person will definitely be tortured > because > I am unlikely to be that person. Indeed, after the replication it won't > affect me > if *all* the other copies are tortured, because despite sharing the same > psychology > up to the point of replication, I am not going to experience their pain. [JR] > I think our disagreement stems from our different conceptions of > consciousness. You seem to believe that once you experience an observer > moment, that you are destined to experience all future observer moments of > that observer. While this is the way most people see the world, I consider > that to be an illusion caused by memory. i.e. "We remember past observer > moments so we must be moving into the future." > I believe that its is just as beneficial to do something that will improve > someone else's observer moments as it is to improve one's future observer > moments. Just think: your current observer moment never gets to experience > the fruits of its current labors, it remains in that observer moment for all > time. Yet we still go to work. That is why altruism is indistinguishable > from selfish behavior in my philosophy. There is no consciousness outside of > brain states, brain states are consciousness, since they exist they are > experienced, no one can say by who or by what, their existance is experience. > Therefore it is in everyone's interest to improve reality's first person, of > which every observer moment is a part. > It's easy to see how evolution taught us to work for one individual's future > observer moments, we defer gratification all time in order to increase the > average quality of all future observer moments. I'm not advocating we all > become like Mother Teresa, but I think we should understand that we are no > more (or less) our future observer moments than we are other individual's > observer moments. I completely agree with your view of observer moments: the person who wakes up in my bed tomorrow won't be me-now, he'll just be someone who shares most of my memories and believes he is me. In fact, if I were killed with an axe during the night and replaced with an exact copy, it wouldn't make any difference to me or anyone else, because I "die" every moment anyway. But the problem is, I am very attached to the illusion of continuity of conscious and personal identity even though I know how it is generated. If I give in to it, I might decide to treat everyone the same as I do myself, but just as likely I might decide to be completely reckless with my life, or even with everyone else's life. But my brain just won't let me think this way. Stathis Papaioannou _________________________________________________________________ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
